Bangus Fry Fisherfolk, et al. v. Hon. Lanzanas, et al.

G.R. No. 131442, July 10, 2003,

Facts:
On June 30, 1997, Regional Executive Director Antonio G. Principe (RED Principe) of Region IV,
DENR
issued an Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC) in favor of National Power Corporation
(NAPOCOR). The ECC authorized NAPOCOR to construct a temporary mooring facility in Minolo
Cove,
Sitio Minolo, Barangay San Isidro, Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro, despite the fact that the
Sangguniang
Bayan of Puerto Galera has declared Minolo Cove, a mangrove area and breeding ground for
bangus fry,
an eco-tourist zone. Petitioners, who claim to be fisherfolks from the area sought
reconsideration of
the ECC issuance. This, however, was denied. As a result, petitioners filed a complaint with
Manila Regional
Trial Court, Branch 7, for the cancellation of the ECC and for the issuance of a writ of injunction
to stop
the construction of the mooring facility. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order but
this was
lifted later on. Respondents ORMECO and the provincial officials of Oriental Mindoro moved to
dismiss
the complaint for failure of the petitioners to exhaust administrative remedies. Petitioners
claim that
there was no need for exhaustion of remedies and claim that the issuance of the ECC was a
violation a
DENR DAO No. 96-37 on the documentation of ECC applications.

Issues:
(1) Whether administrative remedies should have been first exhausted before resorting to the
courts.
(2) Whether the issuance of the Environmental Compliance Certificate violated the DENR DAO
No. 96-37.

Ruling:
Yes. Administrative remedies should have been first exhausted and the issuance of the ECC
violated
DENR DAO No. 96-37.
Petitioners bypassed the DENR Secretary and immediately filed their complaint with the Manila
Regional Trial Court, depriving the DENR Secretary the opportunity to review the decision of his
subordinate. Under the Procedural Manual for DAO 96-37 and applicable jurisprudence,
petitioners’
omission renders their complaint dismissible for lack of cause of action. The Manila Regional
Trial Court
therefore did not err in dismissing petitioners’ complaint for lack of cause of action.
Furthermore, PD
No. 1605 provides that the construction of any commercial structure within the coves and
waters
embraced by Puerto Galera Bay, as protected by Medio Island, is prohibited. PD No. 1605 does
not apply
to this case. The mooring facility is obviously a government-owned public infrastructure
intended to
serve a basic need of the people of Oriental Mindoro. The mooring facility is not a “commercial
structure;
commercial or semi-commercial wharf or commercial docking” as contemplated in Section 1 of
PD No.
1605. Therefore, the issuance of the ECC does not violate PD No. 1605 which applies only to
commercial
structures like wharves, marinas, hotels and restaurants.